Current Russian/Ukrainian AAM projects

If so it wouldn't really increase range, rather it would increase the probability of a hit during the terminal phase. Acquisition by missile active radar seekers is close range (<15 km) and this may have been improved in the last decade - but reductions in radar signature (and improvements in jamming) probably make up for any improvements over the last decade.
 
Avimimus said:
If so it wouldn't really increase range, rather it would increase the probability of a hit during the terminal phase. Acquisition by missile active radar seekers is close range (<15 km) and this may have been improved in the last decade - but reductions in radar signature (and improvements in jamming) probably make up for any improvements over the last decade.
Click to expand...

Data for the active radar seeker ( with additional semi-active mode) type 9B-1103M-200PA in the R-77-1 :

Lock-on range of target with RCS of 3sqm is 20km in the ARH mode and 80-100km in the SARH mode .

Головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-200ПА | Ракетная техника

Активно-полуактивная головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-200ПА предназначена для установки на ракеты класса "воздух-воздух", предназначенные для поражения самолетов, вертолетов (включая зависшие),
missilery.info missilery.info
 
So the last missile project we are waiting on is the product 810 to replace the R-37M correct?
The part I am finding very wild from new sources from a yandex search is that they are stating this air-to-air missile can intercept enemy air to air missiles. Is that part bullshit?
I find the thought of that pretty funny if some 4th gen loaded with the most air to air missiles will win against a 5th gen because of it shooting down most of the adversary's 5th gen incoming air to air missiles and has some missiles to spare for the 5th gen if it gets close enough.
 
Null said:
So the last missile project we are waiting on is the product 810 to replace the R-37M correct?
The part I am finding very wild from new sources from a yandex search is that they are stating this air-to-air missile can intercept enemy air to air missiles. Is that part bullshit?
Click to expand...

It probably can, if that's a genuine mission profile/intended use case is a different question.

I'm curious why you're so surprised though? The primary means of intercepting missiles is using other missiles. I mean, you can try to intercept a ballistic missile by flying an aircraft straight into it, but generally speaking Surface-to-Air Missiles are the preferred means.

I'm rather certain that most air-to-air missiles today can intercept other air-to-air missiles when the circumstances allow it, the stars align so to speak.

I'll take the freedom to doubt that's a genuine use case for the Izdeliye 810 though. It's a waste of a presumably very heavy, very fast, very long range missile. Which is better off obliterating the fighter that is launching other missiles, rather than the missiles themselves.

IIRC the chinese are looking into self-defense missiles for aircraft though, what's going to come off this? Who knows, it's basically aerial APS, so technically feasible?

Now, I could imagine that Izdeliye 810 on Su-57, MiG-31 (I assume it will be integrated there too) and PAK DP will serve a secondary role to be utilized in ballistic missile defense. Makes sense for interceptor aircraft to have that capability. And if the missile is substantial in size, range, velocity and possibly warhead, a direct hit to a ballistic missile or MIRV could result in the destruction of the target. That's a use case that seems logical and in-line with Russian doctrine as well as these VLRAAMs being utilized by Russias interceptors and top-of-the-line fighters. It also gives another layer to the ABM shield.
 
Null said:
they are stating this air-to-air missile can intercept enemy air to air missiles. Is that part bullshit?
Click to expand...

It was part of the advertisement as early as RVV-AE/R-77/Izd-190 missile. capability wise tho, possible tho it has to be supported by some good radar, to detect the incoming missile on-time.
 
1753677939646.png
I am assuming the product 810 that will replace the R-37M will have G-loads to intercept maneuverable targets from 300kms away.
1753678275978.png
 
Null said:
So the last missile project we are waiting on is the product 810 to replace the R-37M correct?
The part I am finding very wild from new sources from a yandex search is that they are stating this air-to-air missile can intercept enemy air to air missiles. Is that part bullshit?
I find the thought of that pretty funny if some 4th gen loaded with the most air to air missiles will win against a 5th gen because of it shooting down most of the adversary's 5th gen incoming air to air missiles and has some missiles to spare for the 5th gen if it gets close enough.
Click to expand...

No of course. Izd. 810 or R-97 is the very long range hypersonic AAM for the Su-57 only. It will not replace actual R-37M/ Izd 610M which is in arsenal of the MiG-31BM, Su-30SM2 and Su-35S.
 
Null said:
View attachment 779430
I am assuming the product 810 that will replace the R-37M will have G-loads to intercept maneuverable targets from 300kms away.
View attachment 779431
Click to expand...

8G is for the given target in the moment of evading the R-37M ( so during anti-AAM maneuver).That is not the G load for the AAM itself.

25-27G of lateral G-load ? Even old R-77E or newer R-77-1 can whitstand lateral load of 50G.
 
Squirrel said:
About new R-77M ...

View attachment 779360

If this new AAM really has dual-pulse engine ,question is. When exactly starts the second pulse? First one of course starts after ignition and is used for the acceleration until AAM reaches max speed.( max Mach number). Now we come to the second one and some sources give info that second pulse starts after active radar seeker lock-on the given target .Is this possible and real?
Click to expand...
Generally, this isn't done because although a second ignition during the terminal guidance phase would significantly increase the terminal velocity at impact, it would also reduce the missile's average flight speed, at the cost of reduced range.
 
hhk31 said:
Generally, this isn't done because although a second ignition during the terminal guidance phase would significantly increase the terminal velocity at impact, it would also reduce the missile's average flight speed, at the cost of reduced range.
Click to expand...

Now is the question, what in fact triggers that second pulse ignition?
 
lancer21 said:
It's based on this post found in 2023 on mycitymilitary, which in turn must be from a russian source, maybe TG?

'' Су-57 има 5 нових ракета класе В-В и то су : Изделие 171-1 ( Р-77-2) макс 6 ком ,4 испод крила и 2 испод уводника ваздуха, Изделие 180 ( Р-87 ) макс 10 ком ,4 испод крила,2 испод уводника ваздуха и 4 унутар трупних спремника, Изделие 270 ( Р-47) макс 6 ком ,4 испод крила и 2 испод уводника ваздуха , Изделие 760 ( Р-74М2) макс 6 ком ,4 испод крила и 2 унутар подкрилних спремника и Изделие 810 ( Р-97) макс 10 ком ,4 испод крила,2 испод уводника ваздуха и 4 унутар трупних спремника. ''
Click to expand...
Most of these R- designations (and some articles) are self-invented BS
 
Last edited:
Several days ago, I've found this comment,hm.


''Шлемазл, Р-77М - не Изд. 180. И фоток с ними под крылом, еще с кампании легионов Третьеримской Империи в провинции Сирия попадалось. Не говоря уж об СВО. А УРВВ СД/БД (ее по дальности в оба класса сунуть можно, хотя до Р-37-1/37М и Изд.810 ей и далеко) Изд. 180 называется Р-87. И фотки с ними всплыли не сейчас, а еще в 2020г., но под крылом Су-57. Собственно, изделия 810 и 180 для 57-го и предназначены. Оптимизированы под отсеки. Что адаптировали и Су-35С под нее, как и, вероятно, Су-30СМ2, и, возможно, МиГ-31БМ/БМ2 - таки новость, да. Но и только. Причём, даже в пуховской ночной вазе с... икспëртами, заметим, те фотки были. Склероз уже, да?''

Shlemazl, R-77M is not Product 180. And there were photos with them under the wing, even from the campaign of the legions of the Third Roman Empire in the province of Syria. Not to mention the SMO. And the SD/BD AAM's (in terms of range, it can be put into both classes, although it is far from the R-37-1/37M and Product 810) . Product 180 is called the R-87. And photos with them surfaced not now, but back in 2020, but under the wing of the Su-57. Actually, Products 810 and 180 are intended for the Su-57.
Optimized for the compartments. That the Su-35S was adapted for it, as well as, probably, the Su-30SM2, and, possibly, the MiG-31BM/BM2 - that's news, yes. But that's all. Moreover, even in Pukhovsky's night vase with... experts, mind you, those photos were there. Sclerosis already, right?''

Source of this comment is: https://t.me/pozivnoy_kazman
 
lancer21 said:
If you have different/more accurate info please do share your input, rather than just snide comments?
Click to expand...
It is just better not to listen to what Squirrel says. His messages are usually pure, unfiltered imagination. Everyone can use random comments under random posts for “insight info”…
 
flateric said:
I read it on the Web, it can't be BS (c)
Click to expand...

Yes and what if Kazman was right?

NovaGA said:
It is just better not to listen to what Squirrel says. His messages are usually pure, unfiltered imagination. Everyone can use random comments under random posts for “insight info”…
Click to expand...

And your sources are official, military?

Geo said:
There is Kh-31.
Click to expand...

Of course,Kh-31PM ,exactly were e.g. PD designation is from manufacturer and PM is military designation.
 
NovaGA said:
It is just better not to listen to what Squirrel says. His messages are usually pure, unfiltered imagination. Everyone can use random comments under random posts for “insight info”…
Click to expand...
It's not that Squirrel posted that, but that info is in the open from at least 2023. I've sat on it until recently because i thought of OPSEC, but obviously as it's been in the open for 2 years plus now that's not a concern. The designations look legit to me (including the weird ones like the known R-77-1 and then R-77-2), no one would have just invented that imo. And i'm sure there was some time ago posted a Su-57 MFD or HUD image confirming the R-97 designation for instance.
 
Twenty years ago ,one new active radar seeker was shown at Le Bourget 2005 , it was 9B1103M-150 Colibry.

Agat shows 'world's smallest' active-radar missile seeker​

Doug Richardson

''At the June 2005 Paris Air Show, the Moscow-based Agat Research Institute displayed a prototype of what it believes is the world's smallest active-radar missile seeker, writes Doug Richardson. Designed in a diameter that seems to rule out a Russian application, it may be intended for use on Chinese missiles.

A derivative of the organisation's earlier 9B-1103M seeker, the new 9B-1103M-150 has a diameter of only 150 mm and a total weight of about 8 kg. (The original 9B-1103M is 200 mm in diameter and weighs 14.5 kg.)''


Twenty years after and the question is,where is this active radar seeker anyway ?As we know ,newer AAM's like R-74(L)/M(ML) and R-74M2 are IR-guided. Hm, maybe new Product 300M got 9B1103M-150?
 
Squirrel said:
Twenty years ago ,one new active radar seeker was shown at Le Bourget 2005 , it was 9B1103M-150 Colibry.

Agat shows 'world's smallest' active-radar missile seeker​

Doug Richardson

''At the June 2005 Paris Air Show, the Moscow-based Agat Research Institute displayed a prototype of what it believes is the world's smallest active-radar missile seeker, writes Doug Richardson. Designed in a diameter that seems to rule out a Russian application, it may be intended for use on Chinese missiles.

A derivative of the organisation's earlier 9B-1103M seeker, the new 9B-1103M-150 has a diameter of only 150 mm and a total weight of about 8 kg. (The original 9B-1103M is 200 mm in diameter and weighs 14.5 kg.)''


Twenty years after and the question is,where is this active radar seeker anyway ?As we know ,newer AAM's like R-74(L)/M(ML) and R-74M2 are IR-guided. Hm, maybe new Product 300M got 9B1103M-150?
Click to expand...
Speculation on speculation. The point of the 9B1103M was it was scalable to different diameters for different applications and AGAT displayed 350mm and 150mm versions of it. The might have had a specific role for the 150mm version, but it might not have been an AAM but a SAM for instance. Or it might just have been a Technology demonstration of how small they could make a seeker.

Speculating a 20 year old airshow exhibit is the seeker on a not yet seen AAM is frankly just noise.
 
flateric said:
I said more than enough.
Click to expand...

No. It's never enough and always too much.

overscan (PaulMM) said:
Speculation on speculation. The point of the 9B1103M was it was scalable to different diameters for different applications and AGAT displayed 350mm and 150mm versions of it. The might have had a specific role for the 150mm version, but it might not have been an AAM but a SAM for instance. Or it might just have been a Technology demonstration of how small they could make a seeker.

Speculating a 20 year old airshow exhibit is the seeker on a not yet seen AAM is frankly just noise.
Click to expand...

I see the same half dozen or so individuals dragging in their very obvious geopolitical worldviews in multiple threads. I see some of these people consciously or subconsciously try to shape narratives to fit events within vague confines of their personal beliefs.

Just seems that debate and speculation will get a quiet pass as long as it's the equipment the Good Guys use and as long as one's geopolitical views align with those of our wonderful *Rules Based World Order™*
 
Last edited:
TMA1 said:
I see the same half dozen or so individuals dragging in their very obvious geopolitical worldviews in multiple threads. I see some of these people consciously or subconsciously try to shape narratives to fit events within vague confines of their personal beliefs.

Just seems that debate and speculation will get a quiet pass as long as it's the equipment the Good Guys use and as long as one's geopolitical views align with those of our wonderful *Rules Based World Order™*
Click to expand...
Assuming this is aimed at me, it' s pretty far off base.

I dislike unfounded speculation. There is zero evidence the airshow seeker from 2005 is related to Izdeliye 300M.

I'm not saying that Izdeliye 300M doesn't exist, I'm not saying I know for a fact it doesn't use a 20 year old seeker design. Who knows? I think it unlikely. Izdeliye 300 was IR homing and cancelled long ago. If 300M uses a radar seeker it will most likely be a newer design with an AESA antenna.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Speculation on speculation. The point of the 9B1103M was it was scalable to different diameters for different applications and AGAT displayed 350mm and 150mm versions of it. The might have had a specific role for the 150mm version, but it might not have been an AAM but a SAM for instance. Or it might just have been a Technology demonstration of how small they could make a seeker.

Speculating a 20 year old airshow exhibit is the seeker on a not yet seen AAM is frankly just noise.
Click to expand...

Citation from the source is very interesting ,first translated one :

''In the case of IR-guided surface-to-air missiles, there is no potential Russian application for the 9B-1103M-150 seeker.''

Than original Russian :

''Они включают РГСН 9Б-1103М-350 с калибром 350 мм "Шайба" для ракет большой дальности действия, 9Б-1103М-200 с калибром 200 мм "Прогресс" для ракет малой дальности действия и 9Б-1103М-150 "Колибри" для ракет малой дальности действия. Одной из особенностей этих АРГСН является возможность их унифицированного применения как в ракетах класса "воздух-воздух", так и в ракетах "поверхность-воздух".''

Transl :

''They include the 9B-1103M-350 350mm Shayba RGSN for long-range missiles, the 9B-1103M-200 200mm Progress RGSN for short-range missiles, and the 9B-1103M-150 Kolibri RGSN for short-range missiles. One of the features of these RGSN is the possibility of their unified use in both air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.''

Hm, we know that 9B-1103M-350 is integrated into R-37M and 9B-1103M-200PA/PS into R-77-1/L and as I asked earlier ,where in that 9B-1103M-150 ???

When we talk about that 'antenna diameters' ,Agat developed 9B-1103M1 and M2 with 150mm and only 100mm diameter.

''НА МАКС-2019 ПОКАЗАЛ НОВЫЕ ГОЛОВКИ САМОНАВЕДЕНИЯ 9Б-1103М1 И 9Б-1103М2''

subscribe.ru

Оборонно-промышленный комплекс, новости, история, развитие (media.today.defense) : Рассылка : Subscribe.Ru

30 авгÑÑÑа 30 авгÑÑÑа 2003 года ÐÐÐ <K-159> пÑоекÑа 627РзаÑонÑла в ÐаÑенÑевом моÑе. Ðа <K-159, вÑведенной из ÑкÑплÑаÑаÑии и бÑкÑиÑовавÑейÑÑ Ðº меÑÑÑ ÑÑилизаÑии, наÑодилоÑÑ 10 Ñленов Ñкипажа, одного...
subscribe.ru
 
Nothing you've linked to says says that the 9B-1103M-350 is integrated to the R-37M nor the 9B-1103M-200PA/PS to the R-77-1. At airshows they are described generically by missile class only. Do you have a source for this? If its inferred by you, then say so.

Also you just switched from discussing the 9B-1103M-150 seeker from 2005 to the 9B-1103M1 / 9B-1103M2 seeker from 2019. This is new information to me.

As I have asked before, please bring links to all relevant sources to posts.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Nothing you've linked to says says that the 9B-1103M-350 is integrated to the R-37M nor the 9B-1103M-200PA/PS to the R-77-1. At airshows they are described generically by missile class only. Do you have a source for this? If its inferred by you, then say so.

Also you just switched from discussing the 9B-1103M-150 seeker from 2005 to the 9B-1103M1 / 9B-1103M2 seeker from 2019. This is new information to me.

As I have asked before, please bring links to all relevant sources to posts.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I thought that you know already.

R-77-1 or Izd. 170-1 really has 9B1103M-200PA/PS ''Progress'' active/semi-active and active/passive radar seeker ...

Авиационная ракета средней дальности Р-77-1 (РВВ-СД изделие 170-1) | Ракетная техника

Ракета класса «воздух-воздух» средней дальности Р-77-1 (изделие 170-1) предназначена для поражения воздушных целей (истребителей, штурмовиков, бомбардировщиков, самолетов ВТА, вертолетов, крылатых
missilery.info missilery.info

Головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-200ПС | Ракетная техника

Активно-пассивная головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-200ПС предназначена для установки на ракеты класса "воздух-воздух", предназначенные для поражения самолетов, вертолетов (включая зависшие), крылатых и
missilery.info missilery.info

Головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-200ПА | Ракетная техника

Активно-полуактивная головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-200ПА предназначена для установки на ракеты класса "воздух-воздух", предназначенные для поражения самолетов, вертолетов (включая зависшие),
missilery.info missilery.info

ARH mode works in Ku-band and SARH mode works in X-band while passive mode works in several bands of the radar illumination.


R-37M or Izd. 610M has that 9B-1103M-350 ''Shayba'' active/semi-active radar seeker where ARH mode works in Ku-band and SARH mode works in X-band .

Авиационная ракета большой дальности Р-37 (РВВ-БД) | Ракетная техника

Управляемая авиационная ракета большой дальности Р-37 (К-37,РВВ-БД) предназначена для поражения воздушных целей (истребителей, штурмовиков, бомбардировщиков, самолетов военно-транспортной авиации,
missilery.info missilery.info

Головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-350 | Ракетная техника

Активная радиолокационная головка самонаведения 9Б-1103М-350 предназначена для установки на ракеты класса "воздух-воздух", предназначенные для поражения самолетов, вертолетов (включая зависшие),
missilery.info missilery.info
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Assuming this is aimed at me, it' s pretty far off base.

I dislike unfounded speculation. There is zero evidence the airshow seeker from 2005 is related to Izdeliye 300M.

I'm not saying that Izdeliye 300M doesn't exist, I'm not saying I know for a fact it doesn't use a 20 year old seeker design. Who knows? I think it unlikely. Izdeliye 300 was IR homing and cancelled long ago. If 300M uses a radar seeker it will most likely be a newer design with an AESA antenna.
Click to expand...

No it was not aimed at you. was talking about posts largely related to Russian-Ukraine not-a-war. This spills over to threads concerning the eastern european and caspian regions.

Honestly looking at it with some time passing I was being too dramatic. The kind of issues I was talking about are universal issues and when people try to crack down on these kinds of things it chills free speech and free association. That would obviously suck.
 
One interesting article from May 2006 ( Take off.ru, pages 32,33,34 and 35) , author was Yevgeniy Yerokhin and title is :

New weapons for the new gen. fighter

For the WVR combat ,there is Izdeliye 760 ( we know it is R-74M2) and the new Izdelie 300 ( 300M) for the close-in combat and anti-SAM/AAM defence.Main constructor of both was Genadiy Sokolovsky.As we know, there is new LWIR seeker for the Izd 760 and Izd 300/300M has also new IR seeker,new dual-phase rocket engine with time of aerodynamic stability and controlability of 100sec. It has TVC nozzle.

For the BVR combat there is new medium range AAM as a modification of Izd 170/170-1 ( R-77/R-77-1) known as Izdeliye 180 with new non-foldable 'triangled' stabilizers.There is new multi-mode active-passive radar seeker,two-way data-link and new dual-pulse rocket engine with total burn time 100sec.

Another modification is in fact new AAM with the ram-jet propulsion.

For the long range BVR ( very long range AAM ), there is of course Izdeliye 610M or R-37M ( for the MiG-31BM, Su-30SM2 and Su-35S as we know) and the new Izdeliye 810 ( R-97) for the Su-57's FWC's .Max launch distances will be 1.5x greater ( in comparison with Izd. 610M ). It has dual-pulse rocket engine and total time of the aerodynamic stability and controlability is 360 sec. If I remember well, for comparison ,R-37M has max time of the aerodynamic stability and controlability of 300 sec. Max height of the target can be even 40kms.There is also new multi-mode active-passive radar seeker,two-way data link etc.


Source: http://www.take-off.ru/pdf/05_2006.pdf


Of course that was almost 20 years ago and all of mentioned AAM's are now in serial production ( GosMKB Vympel).
 
Defense Updates has just put out a video about Russia's latest AA-12 Adder variant:


The Russian Aerospace Forces have officially fielded the R-77M active radar-guided air-to-air missile, as confirmed by a newly released photo showing a Su-35S fighter armed with two of the advanced weapons. This marks the first visual proof of the missile’s operational deployment. The R-77M's arrival has been over a decade in the making, and its absence has long been seen as a weakness in Russia’s air combat arsenal. Until now, Russian fighters have relied on the older R-77-1, which left them lagging behind U.S., Chinese, and even European air forces in long-range engagement capability.The new missile is considered a direct counterpart to the Chinese PL-15 and the American AIM-120D , European Meteor, with an engagement range of approximately 100 miles (160 km).​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how Russia is aiming to bridge the air to air capability gap with R-77M?
#defenseupdates #R77Mmissile #usvsrussia
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:14 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
01:48 BACKGROUND
03:42 R-77M
05:14 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
Is this another of those rubbish clickbait videos? The text quotes point to that, apparently they ignore the R-37M in service close to a decade now that was outranging everything possibly bar the PL-17. Plus there is the R-97 with even more range, only PL-17 and AIM-174 being in the same ballpark. Actually it is interesting to ponder the modern russian approach to air combat, emphasizing big very long range missiles, probably to compensate for numerical inferiority vs NATO. Which seems like a reverse from the Cold War, were generally the soviets were mostly outranged in BVR missiles, at least until the 1980s.
 
lancer21 said:
If you have different/more accurate info please do share your input, rather than just snide comments?
Click to expand...

There is a point here though - it is better to say 'service designation unconfirmed' than to report unreliable, unsourced, claims about what the service designation could be.

If one lacks reliable information, it is almost always better to say 'I don't know', rather than to accept information sources that may be B.S.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom